HARENDRA VHAUBEY Vs. BIHAR STATE BAR COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) From a copy of the Model Rules framed by the Bihar State Bar Council (for short 'Bar Council'), it appears that it was passed by the General Body of the Bar Council in its meeting held on 28.7.1991, vide Resolution No. 54. However, since then it was pending for approval of Bar Council of India (Union Council), which finally approved it, vide its letter No. 5414/2003 dated 22.12.2003 and since then, the Model Rules has come into operation. Rule 13 of the Model Rules prescribes that an Executive Committee of a Bar Association (registered/affiliated with the Bar Council) is to consist of a President and all office bearers; seven members elected by the General Body and five members co-opted by the President and office bearers. Rule 13(A) lays down that any member of the Executive Committee, having experience of 25 years, and above shall be eligible to the post of President and Vice President and advocates, having experience of 20 years or above, shall be eligible for the post of Secretary/General Secretary and Treasurer. Likewise, advocates, having a practice of 10 years or above, shall be eligible for the rest of the posts of office bearers. Office bearers shall be eligible for election to the same post continuously for two terms. It is also provided in the said Rules that Bar Council may relax the aforesaid eligibility criteria in special circumstances. The said Rule 13(A) of the Model Rules, as amended up-to-date, is being reproduced hereinbelow for easy reference:--

(2.) In 2007 Bar Council received a letter from a member and representations from different associations requesting for relaxation of the eligibility criteria. Bar Council noticed that at several places new districts/sub-divisions had been established. In the circumstances, in the meeting held on 14.1.2007, vide Resolution No. 2/2007, Bar Council passed the resolutions relaxing the said criteria. According to this Resolution, for the affiliated Bar Association at District and High Court level, a lawyer having practice of 20 years was held eligible to contest the election for the post of President, instead of required 25 years of practice, and for the rest of the posts, minimum ten years of practice was made a requirement on uniform basis and for members of the Executive Committee, requirement of any length of practice was waived. Similarly, for Sub-Divisional Courts, required length of practice was reduced to seven years and five years for President and other office bearers, respectively, with no required length of practice for the members of the Executive Committee. This Resolution of the Bar Council came into operation and elections for the members of Executive Committees and for office bearers of the respective Bar Associations were held all over the State with this relaxation. Later on the Bar Council thought it necessary to reconsider the said Resolution no. 2/2007 and the matter was placed in the meeting of the Bar Council dated 14.1.2012. After due deliberation the Bar Council, vide Resolution No. 3/2013, resolved that Resolution No. 2 dated 14.1.2007 was not part of Rule 13(A) nor can it be treated as part thereof. Hence it resolved that only the provisions of Rule 13(A) of the Uniform Rules for Bar Associations will remain in force. The decision was resolved to be communicated to all the affiliated Bar Associations. For easy reference, the said Resolution No. 3/2012 dated 14.1.2012 is also reproduced hereinbelow:--

(3.) It appears that, some earlier elected office bearers of different affiliated Associations, thereafter, submitted applications before the Bar Council for extending relaxation in their cases as granted by the said Resolution no. 2/2007. This necessitated the Bar Council to hold a meeting and pass the impugned Resolution No. 2/2013 dated 20.1.2013. For easy reference, this resolution is also being reproduced hereinbelow:--